Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2017Relying in part on City of Los Angeles, the Gutierrez court found that the materiality standard of Pitchess is both "broader and lower" than that of Brady . ( Gutierrez, supra , 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 1474 , 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) Thus, any defendant who meets the good cause required for Pitchess discovery, will also necessarily obtain any Brady material in the officer's file. ( Gutierrez, at p. 1474, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) Conversely, a defendant who cannot even meet the less stringent Pitchess materiality standard, by definition cannot meet the higher Brady standard. ( Gutierrez, at p. 1474, 6 Ca 2017Relying in part on City of Los Angeles, the Gutierrez court found that the materiality standard of Pitchess is both "broader and lower" than that of Brady . ( Gutierrez, supra , 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 1474 , 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) Thus, any defendant who meets the good cause required for Pitchess discovery, will also necessarily obtain any Brady material in the officer's file. ( Gutierrez, at p. 1474, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) Conversely, a defendant who cannot even meet the less stringent Pitchess materiality standard, by definition cannot meet the higher Brady standard. ( Gutierrez, at p. 1474, 6 Ca | 2 | 3 |
City of Los Angeles v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2014The “narrower” Brady standard tests “whether evidence is material to the fairness of trial[.]” (Brandon, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 10.) Nevertheless, we do not read that language as requiring the trial court to use the Pitchess materiality standard in resolving a motion for disclosure of Brady materials; the Brady materiality standard would apply in establishing “good cause.” Another provision that fits imperfectly with Brady disclosure is to be found in Section 1045. 2006California’s Pitchess discovery scheme “creates both a broader and lower threshold for disclosure than does the high court’s decision in Brady . . . .” {City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 14 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 202 , 52 P.3d 129 ].) “[I]f a defendant cannot meet the less stringent Pitchess materiality standard, he or she cannot meet the more taxing Brady materiality requirement.” {People v. Gutierrez (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 ].) The judgment is affirmed. | 2 | 2 |
Pennsylvania v. Ritchiegreen2 sentences2017Absent a successful Pitchess motion of its own, the prosecution has no right of access to and thus no constructive possession of personnel files or their content. ( Gutierrez, at pp. 1474-1475, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) Since the prosecution has no general access to or constructive possession of law enforcement personnel files, it cannot be expected to review and disclose information from them. ( Id. at p. 1475, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) The Gutierrez court also rejected defendant's contention that Pitchess unconstitutionally required him to make a good cause showing before obtaining evidence he was ent 2017Absent a successful Pitchess motion of its own, the prosecution has no right of access to and thus no constructive possession of personnel files or their content. ( Gutierrez, at pp. 1474-1475, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) Since the prosecution has no general access to or constructive possession of law enforcement personnel files, it cannot be expected to review and disclose information from them. ( Id. at p. 1475, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) The Gutierrez court also rejected defendant's contention that Pitchess unconstitutionally required him to make a good cause showing before obtaining evidence he was ent | 1 | 1 |
Garden Grove Police Department v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017Absent a successful Pitchess motion of its own, the prosecution has no right of access to and thus no constructive possession of personnel files or their content. ( Gutierrez, at pp. 1474-1475, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) Since the prosecution has no general access to or constructive possession of law enforcement personnel files, it cannot be expected to review and disclose information from them. ( Id. at p. 1475, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) The Gutierrez court also rejected defendant's contention that Pitchess unconstitutionally required him to make a good cause showing before obtaining evidence he was ent 2017Absent a successful Pitchess motion of its own, the prosecution has no right of access to and thus no constructive possession of personnel files or their content. ( Gutierrez, at pp. 1474-1475, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) Since the prosecution has no general access to or constructive possession of law enforcement personnel files, it cannot be expected to review and disclose information from them. ( Id. at p. 1475, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 .) The Gutierrez court also rejected defendant's contention that Pitchess unconstitutionally required him to make a good cause showing before obtaining evidence he was ent | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Mooc
green
2 sentences2024The Pitchess materiality requirement also places a burden on the movant to ‘propose a defense or defenses to the pending charges’ and a ‘logical link between the defense proposed and the pending charge.’ ” (Id. at p. 159.) If the trial court finds good cause, the court must hold an in camera hearing, during which the custodian of records brings “all documents ‘potentially relevant’ to the defendant’s motion.” (Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1226 ; see also McDaniel, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 134.) “Subject to statutory exceptions and limitations . . ., the trial court should then disclose to the 2015Of course, to protect the officer’s privacy, the examination of documents and questioning of the custodian should be done in camera in accordance with the requirements of Evidence Code section 915, and the transcript of the in camera hearing and all copies of the documents should be sealed.” (Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1229 , fn. omitted.) When a defendant does not “meet the less stringent Pitchess materiality standard, he [or she] cannot meet the more taxing Brady materiality requirement.” (Gutierrez, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 1474 .) The trial court’s ruling is reviewed for abuse of di | 2 | 2015–2024 |
Alvarez v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2024Code, § 1045, subd. (b) [court “shall exclude from disclosure”]; id., subd (b)(1) [“[i]n any criminal proceeding the conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint filed [by a member of the public] pursuant to [s]ection 832.5”]; id., subd (b)(2) [and “[f]acts sought to be disclosed that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit”].) “Although not required by the statutory scheme, the ‘courts have generally refused to disclose verbatim reports or records of any kind from peace officer personnel files, ordering instead . . . that the agency reveal only the name, | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Warrick v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2022The Pitchess materiality requirement also places a burden on the movant to “propose a defense or defenses to the pending charges” and a “logical link between the defense proposed and the pending charge.” ( Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 1024, 1021.) There is no comparable affidavit requirement for a discovery motion under section 745, subdivision (d). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.